Prison Phone Justice

Contents
Report of the Director ................................................................................................................................... 5
Reporting Requirements of the Statute .......................................................................................................... 6
Regulations ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Judges .................................................................................................7
Authorized Lengths of Intercepts ............................................................................................................ 8
Locations ................................................................................................................................................ 8
Offenses .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Prosecuting Officials ........................................................................... 9
Nature of Intercepts ................................................................................................................................ 9
Costs of Intercepts ................................................................................................................................11
Arrests and Convictions ........................................................................................................................11
Summary of Reports for Years Ending December 31, 1994 Through 2004 .................................................12
Supplementary Reports ........................................................................................................................13

Text Tables
Table 1
Jurisdictions With Statutes Authorizing the Interception
of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications .......................................................................................14
Table 2
Intercept Orders Issued by Judges During Calendar Year 2004 .............................................................15
Table 3
Major Offenses for Which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted .................................................18
Table 4
Summary of Interceptions of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications .............................................21
Table 5
Average Cost per Order ........................................................................................................................24
Table 6
Types of Surveillance Used, Arrests, and Convictions
for Intercepts Installed .......................................................................................................................... 27
Table 7
Authorized Intercepts Granted Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2519 .................................................................30
Table 8
Summary of Supplementary Reports for Intercepts
Terminated in Calendar Years 1997 Through 2003 ...............................................................................31
Table 9
Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in
Calendar Years 1994 Through 2004 .....................................................................................................35

3

Appendix Tables
Table A-1: United States District Courts
Report by Judges ..................................................................................................................................36
Table A-2: United States District Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors ................................................................................................100
Table B-1: State Courts
Report by Judges ................................................................................................................................118
Table B-2: State Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors ................................................................................................222

4

Report of the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts
on
Applications for Orders Authorizing or Approving
the Interception of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications
The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 requires the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts (AO) to report to Congress the number and nature of federal and state applications for orders
authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. The statute requires that
specific information be provided to the AO, including the offense(s) under investigation, the location of the
intercept, the cost of the surveillance, and the number of arrests, trials, and convictions that directly result from
the surveillance. This report covers intercepts concluded between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004, and
provides supplementary information on arrests and convictions resulting from intercepts concluded in prior
years.
A total of 1,710 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts were completed in 2004, an increase of 19
percent compared to the number terminated in 2003. The number of applications for orders by federal authorities rose 26 percent to 730. The number of applications reported by state prosecuting officials grew 13 percent
to 980, with 19 state jurisdictions providing reports, four fewer than in 2003, but equal to the number for 2002.
Wiretaps installed were in operation an average of 43 days per wiretap in 2004 compared to 44 days in 2003.
The average number of persons whose communications were intercepted increased from 116 per wiretap order
in 2003 to 126 per order in 2004. The average percentage of intercepted communications that were incriminating was 21 percent in 2004, compared to 33 percent in 2003.
Public Law 106-197 amended 18 U.S.C. 2519(2)(b) to require that reporting should reflect the number of
wiretap applications granted for which encryption was encountered and whether such encryption prevented law
enforcement officials from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted pursuant to the court orders.
In 2004, two instances were reported of encryption’s being encountered on wiretaps. One federal jurisdiction
and one state jurisdiction each reported that encryption was encountered in a wiretap terminated in 2004;
however, in both cases, the encryption was reported to have not prevented law enforcement officials from
obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted.
The appendix tables of this report list all intercepts reported by judges and prosecuting officials for 2004.
Appendix Table A-1 shows reports filed by federal judges and federal prosecuting officials. Appendix Table B-1
presents the same information for state judges and state prosecuting officials. Appendix Tables A-2 and B-2
contain information from the supplementary reports submitted by prosecuting officials about additional arrests
and trials in 2004 arising from intercepts initially reported in prior years.
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2519(2) provides that prosecutors must submit wiretap reports to the AO no later
than January 31 of each year. This office, as is customary, sends a letter to the appropriate officials every year
reminding them of the statutory mandate. Nevertheless, each year reports are received after the deadline has
passed, and the filing of some reports may be delayed to avoid jeopardizing ongoing investigations. The percentage of missing state and local prosecutors’ reports was 3 percent, the same as in 2003. Information received after
the deadline will be included in next year’s Wiretap Report. The AO is grateful for the cooperation and the
prompt response we received from many officials around the nation.

Leonidas Ralph Mecham
Director
April 2005
5

Applications for Orders Authorizing
or Approving the Interception of Wire, Oral,
or Electronic Communications
Reporting Requirements of the
Statute

to the communication. Examples of such situations
include the use of a wire interception to investigate
obscene phone calls, the interception of a communication to which a police officer or police informant is
a party, or the use of a body microphone. Also, no
report to the AO is required for the use of a pen
register (a device attached to a telephone line that
records or decodes impulses identifying the numbers
dialed from that line) unless the pen register is used
in conjunction with any wiretap devices whose use
must be reported. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3126, the
U.S. Department of Justice collects and reports data
on pen registers and trap and trace devices.

Each federal and state judge is required to file a
written report with the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts (AO) on each
application for an order authorizing the interception
of a wire, oral, or electronic communication (18
U.S.C. 2519(1)). This report is to be furnished within
30 days of the denial of the application or the expiration of the court order (after all extensions have
expired). The report must include the name of the
official who applied for the order, the offense under
investigation, the type of interception device, the
general location of the device, and the duration of the
authorized intercept.
Prosecuting officials who applied for interception orders are required to submit reports to the AO
each January on all orders that were terminated
during the previous calendar year. These reports
contain information related to the cost of each intercept, the number of days the intercept device was
actually in operation, the total number of intercepts,
and the number of incriminating intercepts recorded.
Results such as arrests, trials, convictions, and the
number of motions to suppress evidence related
directly to the use of intercepts also are noted.
Neither the judges’ reports nor the prosecuting
officials’ reports contain the names, addresses, or
phone numbers of the parties investigated. The AO is
not authorized to collect this information.
This report tabulates the number of applications
for interceptions that were granted or denied, as
reported by judges, as well as the number of authorizations for which interception devices were installed,
as reported by prosecuting officials. No statistics are
available on the number of devices installed for each
authorized order. This report does not include interceptions regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).
No report to the AO is required when an order is
issued with the consent of one of the principal parties

Regulations
The Director of the AO is empowered to develop
and revise the reporting regulations and reporting
forms for collecting information on intercepts. Copies
of the regulations, the reporting forms, and the federal
wiretapping statute may be obtained by writing to the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
Statistics Division, Washington, D.C. 20544.
The Attorney General of the United States, the
Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney
General, any Assistant Attorney General, any acting
Assistant Attorney General, or any specially designated Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice may
authorize an application to a federal judge for an
order authorizing the interception of wire, oral, or
electronic communications. On the state level, applications are made by a prosecuting attorney “if such
attorney is authorized by a statute of that State to
make application to a State court judge of competent
jurisdiction.”
Many wiretap orders are related to large-scale
criminal investigations that cross county and state
boundaries. Consequently, arrests, trials, and convictions resulting from these interceptions often do not
occur within the same year as the installation of the
intercept device. Under 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials must file supplementary reports on

6

additional court or police activity that occurs as a
result of intercepts reported in prior years. Appendix
Tables A-2 and B-2 describe the additional activity
reported by prosecuting officials in their supplementary reports.
Table 1 shows that 47 jurisdictions (the federal
government, the District of Columbia, the Virgin
Islands, and 44 states) currently have laws that
authorize courts to issue orders permitting wire, oral,
or electronic surveillance. During 2004, a total of 20
jurisdictions reported using at least one of these three
types of surveillance as an investigative tool.

the reporting jurisdictions. The same reporting
number is used for any supplemental information
reported for a communications intercept in future
volumes of the Wiretap Report.
The number of wiretaps reported increased 19
percent in 2004. A total of 1,710 applications were
authorized in 2004, including 730 submitted to
federal judges and 980 to state judges. Judges approved all applications. Compared to the number
approved during 2003, the number of applications
approved by federal judges in 2004 increased 26
percent, and the number of applications approved by
state judges rose 13 percent. Wiretap applications in
New York (347 applications), California (180 applications), New Jersey (144 applications), and Florida (72
applications) accounted for 76 percent of all applications approved by state judges. The number of states
reporting wiretap activity was lower than the number
for last year (19 states reported such activity in 2004,
compared to 23 in 2003) but equal to the number for
2002. Eighty-five separate state jurisdictions submitted reports for 2004, which is 17 fewer than the total
for 2003, but 5 more than the total for 2002.

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Judges
Data on applications for wiretaps terminated
during calendar year 2004 appear in Appendix Tables
A-1 (federal) and B-1 (state). The reporting numbers
used in the appendix tables are reference numbers
assigned by the AO; these numbers do not correspond
to the authorization or application numbers used by

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Number of Authorizations

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0
1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Calendar Year
Federal

State

7

2001

2002

2003

2004

This is an increase of 7 points over the percentage in
2003, when 81 percent of all intercepts involved
portable devices.
The next most common specific location for the
placement of wiretaps in 2004 was a “personal
residence,” a type of location that includes singlefamily houses, as well as row houses, apartments,
and other multi-family dwellings. Table 2 shows that
in 2004, a total of 5 percent (83 wiretaps) of all
intercept devices were authorized for personal
residences. Two percent (30 wiretaps) were authorized for business establishments such as offices,
restaurants, and hotels. Combinations of locations
were cited in 65 federal and state applications (4
percent of the total) in 2004. One percent (22
wiretaps) were authorized for “other” locations,
which included such places as prisons, pay telephones in public areas, and motor vehicles.
Pursuant to the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of 1986, a specific location need not be
cited if the application contains a statement explaining why such specification is not practical or shows
“a purpose, on the part of that person (under investigation), to thwart interception by changing facilities”
(see 18 U.S.C. 2518 (11)). In these cases, prosecutors
use “roving” wiretaps to target a specific person
rather than a specific telephone or location. The
Intelligence Authorization Act of 1999, enacted on
October 20, 1998, amended 18 U.S.C. 2518 (11)(b)
to provide that a specific facility need not be cited “if
there is probable cause to believe that actions by the
person under investigation could have the effect of
thwarting interception from a specified facility.” The
amendment also specifies that “the order authorizing
or approving the interception is limited to interception only for such time as it is reasonable to presume
that the person identified in the application is or was
reasonably proximate to the instrument through
which such communication will be or was transmitted.”
For 2004, an authorization for one wiretap
indicated approval with a relaxed specification order,
meaning it was considered a roving wiretap. This is a
decrease from 2003, when six wiretaps were reported
as roving wiretaps. The roving wiretap approved in
2004 was a federal wiretap used in a narcotics
investigation; no roving wiretaps were reported by
state authorities.

Authorized Lengths of
Intercepts
Table 2 presents the number of intercept orders
issued in each jurisdiction that provided reports, the
number of amended intercept orders issued, the
number of extensions granted, the average lengths of
the original authorizations and their extensions, the
total number of days the intercepts actually were in
operation, and the nature of the location where each
interception of communications occurred. Most state
laws limit the period of surveillance under an original
order to 30 days. This period, however, can be
lengthened by one or more extensions if the authorizing judge determines that additional time for surveillance is warranted.
During 2004, the average length of an original
authorization was 28 days, one day fewer than in
2003. A total of 1,341 extensions were requested and
authorized in 2004, an increase of 17 percent. The
average length of an extension was 28 days, one
fewer than in 2003. The longest federal intercept
occurred in the Northern District of Illinois, where an
original 30-day order was extended 12 times to
complete a 390-day wiretap used in a racketeering
investigation. Among state wiretaps terminating
during 2004, the longest was used in a narcotics
investigation conducted in Queens County, New
York; this wiretap, also in use for 390 days, required
a 30-day order to be extended 12 times. In contrast,
24 federal intercepts and 59 state intercepts each
were in operation for less than a week.

Locations
The most common location specified in wiretap
applications authorized in 2004 was “portable device,
carried by/on individual,” a category included for the
first time in the 2000 Wiretap Report. This category
was added because wiretaps authorized for devices
such as portable digital pagers and cellular telephones did not fit readily into the location categories
provided prior to 2000. Since that time, the proportion of wiretaps involving fixed locations has declined as the use of mobile communications devices
has become more prevalent. Table 2 shows that in
2004, a total of 88 percent (1,507 wiretaps) of all
intercepts authorized involved portable devices such
as these, which are not limited to fixed locations.

8

delayed filing reports to avoid jeopardizing ongoing
investigations. Information received after the deadline will be included in next year’s Wiretap Report.

Offenses
Violations of drug laws and racketeering laws
were the two most prevalent types of offenses investigated through communications intercepts. Gambling
was the third most frequently recorded offense
category, and homicide/assault the fourth. Table 3
indicates that 76 percent of all applications for
intercepts (1,308 wiretaps) authorized in 2004 cited
drug offenses as the most serious offense under
investigation. Many applications for court orders
indicated that several criminal offenses were under
investigation, but Table 3 includes only the most
serious criminal offense named in an application. The
use of federal intercepts to conduct drug investigations was most common in the Southern District of
New York (95 applications), the Northern District of
Illinois (51 applications), and the Central District of
California (42 applications). On the state level, the
largest number of drug-related intercepts was reported in Queens County, New York (83 applications), followed by Los Angeles County, California
(75 applications) and the New York City Special
Narcotics Bureau (73 applications). Nationwide,
racketeering (138 orders) and gambling (90 orders)
were specified in 8 percent and 5 percent of applications, respectively, as the most serious offense under
investigation. The categories of homicide/assault (48
orders) and larceny/theft/robbery (39 orders) were
specified in 3 percent and 2 percent of applications,
respectively.

Nature of Intercepts
Of the 1,710 communication interceptions
authorized in 2004, reports submitted by prosecutors
indicated that intercept devices were installed and
results were reported in conjunction with a total of
1,633 orders. As shown in Table 2, orders for 25
wiretaps were approved for which no wiretaps
actually were installed, and results from 52 wiretap
orders were not available for reporting by the prosecutors. Table 4 presents information on the average
number of intercepts per order, the number of
persons whose communications were intercepted, the
total number of communications intercepted, and the
number of incriminating intercepts. Wiretaps varied
extensively with respect to the above characteristics.
In 2004, installed wiretaps were in operation an
average of 43 days, one day less than the average
number of days wiretaps were in operation in 2003.
The most active federal wiretap occurred in the
District of New Jersey, where a counterfeiting investigation involving the interception of computer messages resulted in the interception of 206,444
messages over 30 days. The second most active
federal intercept, also a computer wiretap, occurred
in the Southern District of New York as part of a 30day racketeering investigation and resulted in a total
of 107,779 interceptions. The next most active
federal wiretaps involved cellular telephone intercepts: a 30-day narcotics investigation in the Northern District of Illinois with an average of 476
interceptions per day, and a 60-day narcotics investigation in the District of Colorado with an average of
437 interceptions per day. For state authorizations,
two jurisdictions reported wiretaps that produced an
average of more than 600 intercepts per day: a
wiretap used in a 30-day narcotics investigation in
Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, with an average of
681 intercepts per day, and a 30-day narcotics
investigation in Suffolk County, New York, with an
average of 619 intercepts per day. Nationwide, in
2004 the average number of persons whose communications were intercepted per order in which intercepts were installed was 126, and the average
number of communications intercepted was 3,017

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Prosecuting
Officials
In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials must submit reports to the AO no
later than January 31 of each year for intercepts
terminated during the previous calendar year. Appendix Tables A-1 and B-1 contain information from all
prosecutors’ reports submitted for 2004. Judges
submitted 52 reports for which the AO received no
corresponding reports from prosecuting officials. For
these authorizations, the entry “NP” (no prosecutor’s
report) appears in the appendix tables. Some of the
prosecutors’ reports may have been received too late
to include in this report, and some prosecutors

9

Drugs as the Major Offense

1,400
1,308
1,167

1,200

1,104
1,052

1,000

978

955

894

870

876

821
732

800

600

400

326

316

1996

1997

278

402

372

374

328

296

324

306

338

200

0
1994

1995

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Calendar Year
Drugs
Other Offenses

per wiretap. An average of 619 intercepts per installed
wiretap produced incriminating evidence. The average
percentage of incriminating intercepts per order was
21 percent in 2004, compared to 33 percent in 2003.
The three major categories of surveillance are
wire communications, oral communications, and
electronic communications. In the early years of
wiretap reporting, nearly all intercepts involved
telephone (wire) surveillance, primarily communications made via conventional telephone lines; the
remainder involved microphone (oral) surveillance or
a combination of wire and oral interception. With the
passage of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
of 1986, a third category was added for the reporting
of electronic communications, which most commonly
involve digital-display paging devices or fax machines, but also may include some computer transmissions.
Table 6 presents the type of surveillance method
used for each intercept installed. The most common
method of surveillance reported was “phone wire
communication,” which includes all telephones (land
line, cellular, cordless, and mobile). Telephone
wiretaps accounted for 94 percent (1,530 cases) of

intercepts installed in 2004. Of those, 1,480 wiretaps
involved cellular/mobile telephones, either as the only
type of device under surveillance (1,406 cases) or in
combination with other types of telephones (74
cases).
The next most common method of surveillance
reported was the electronic wiretap, which includes
devices such as digital display pagers, voice pagers,
fax machines, and transmissions via computer such as
electronic mail. Electronic wiretaps accounted for 2
percent (38 cases) of intercepts installed in 2004; 20
of these involved electronic pagers, 12 involved
computers, and 6 involved other electronic devices
such as fax machines. Oral wiretaps including microphones were used in 2 percent of intercepts (37
cases). A combination of surveillance methods was
used in 2 percent of intercepts (28 cases); of these
combination intercepts, 93 percent (26 cases) included a mobile/cellular telephone as one of the
devices monitored.
Public Law 106-197 amended 18 U.S.C.
2519(2)(b) in 2001 to require that reporting should
reflect the number of wiretap applications granted in
which encryption was encountered and whether such

10

encryption prevented law enforcement officials from
obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted pursuant to the court orders. In 2004, one
instance was reported of encryption encountered
during a federal wiretap; however, the encryption did
not prevent law enforcement officials from obtaining
the plain text of the communications intercepted. One
state jurisdiction reported that encryption was encountered in a wiretap terminated in 2004, but the
encryption did not prevent law enforcement officials
from obtaining the plain text of communications
intercepted.

in 2004, the average cost was $75,527, a 5 percent
increase from the average cost in 2003. The average
cost of a state wiretap fell 3 percent to $52,490 in
2004. For additional information, see Appendix
Tables A-1 (federal) & B-1 (state).

Arrests and Convictions
Table 6 presents the numbers of persons arrested
and convicted as a result of interceptions reported as
terminated in 2004. As of December 31, 2004, a total
of 4,506 persons had been arrested based on interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic communications, 23
percent more than in 2003. Wiretaps terminated in
2004 resulted in the conviction of 634 persons as of
December 31, 2004, which was 14 percent of the
number of persons arrested. Federal wiretaps were
responsible for 53 percent of the arrests and 29
percent of the convictions arising from wiretaps
during 2004. A federal wiretap in the Western District
of Texas that resulted in the most arrests of any
intercept terminated in 2004 was the lead wiretap of
three intercepts authorized for a bribery investigation

Costs of Intercepts
Table 5 provides a summary of expenses related
to intercept orders in 2004. The expenditures noted
reflect the cost of installing intercept devices and
monitoring communications for the 1,559 authorizations for which reports included cost data. The
average cost of intercept devices installed in 2004 was
$63,011, up 1 percent from the average cost in 2003.
For federal wiretaps for which expenses were reported

Average Cost of Wiretaps (in Dollars)

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Calendar Year

11

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

that led to the arrest of 270 persons. Middlesex
County, New Jersey, reported the most arrests of any
state wiretap; the lead wiretap of two intercepts used
in a narcotics investigation there yielded the arrest of
97 persons. The leader among federal intercepts in
producing convictions was a wiretap that was the
lead wiretap of three intercepts authorized in the
District of Connecticut for a narcotics investigation,
which led to the conviction of 32 of the 44 persons
arrested. Two state jurisdictions each reported an
interception producing 26 convictions, tying for the
largest number of convictions arising from a state
wiretap terminated in 2004. A wiretap used in a
narcotics investigation in San Diego County, California, resulted in the conviction of 26 of the 34 persons
arrested, and a wiretap that was the lead wiretap of
three used in a narcotics investigation in the Fourth
Judicial Circuit (Duval), Florida, led to the conviction
of 26 of the 33 persons arrested.
Federal and state prosecutors often note the
importance of electronic surveillance in obtaining
arrests and convictions. The District of Maryland
reported that a federal wiretap involving cellular
telephone surveillance during a narcotics conspiracy
investigation led to 15 arrests and 7 convictions; in
addition, the reporting officials stated that this
wiretap “resulted in the seizure of 50 kilos of cocaine,
11 kilos of heroin, 3 vehicles, 15 weapons, and
$2,600,000 in cash.” Reporting officials in the
Central District of California described a federal
wiretap in use for 60 days in a narcotics importation
investigation that resulted in 4 arrests, along with the
seizure of 2 tons of marijuana, 10 vehicles, 4 weapons, and $2,161,530 in cash. Incriminating communications obtained from a wiretap in the Middle
District of North Carolina produced 11 arrests and
the seizure of 9 vehicles, 20 weapons, 23 kilos of
cocaine, and $1,764,209 in cash. Surveillance of
cellular telephone communications reported by the
Southern District of California contributed to 45
arrests and the seizure of 16 pounds of “ice” methamphetamine, 6 kilos of cocaine, 40 pounds of marijuana, 2 indoor marijuana-growing operations, 26
weapons, 7 vehicles, and $1,167,000 in cash.
On the state level, officials in Los Angeles
County, California, reported that a cellular telephone
wiretap in use for 11 days led to the arrest of conspirators planning to murder a police officer and that

“weapons and masks intended for this crime were
seized based on information captured on the wire.”
The district attorney in Franklin County, New York,
reported that interceptions obtained from a cellular
telephone wiretap conducted over 30 days in a
money laundering investigation “were critical to
surveillance of a large drug conspiracy in a rural area
not conducive to physical surveillance” and resulted
in nine arrests. In Georgia, the Gwinnett County
district attorney’s office reported that a wiretap in use
for one day during a kidnapping investigation
permitted the interception of communications made
by the kidnappers as they used the victim’s cellular
telephone until the victim was released. In San
Bernardino County, California, officials reported that
the surveillance of a cellular telephone for 340 days
in a narcotics investigation “provided the evidence
which has made it possible to prosecute and convict
international narcotics traffickers.”
Because criminal cases involving the use of
surveillance may still be under active investigation or
prosecution, the final results of many of the wiretaps
concluded in 2004 may not have been reported.
Prosecutors will report additional costs, arrests, trials,
motions to suppress evidence, and convictions
related directly to these intercepts in future supplementary reports, which will be noted in Appendix
Tables A-2 and B-2 of subsequent volumes of the
Wiretap Report.

Summary of Reports for Years
Ending December 31, 1994
Through 2004
Table 7 provides information on intercepts
reported each year from 1994 to 2004. This table
specifies the number of intercept applications requested, authorized, and installed; the number of
extensions granted; the average length of original
orders and extensions; the locations of intercepts; the
major offenses investigated; average costs; and the
average number of persons intercepted, communications intercepted, and incriminating intercepts. From
1994 to 2004, the number of intercept applications
authorized increased 48 percent. The majority of
wiretaps consistently have been used for drug crime
investigations, which accounted for 76 percent of

12

intercept applications in 2004. During the past 10
years, the percentage of drug-related wiretaps has
ranged from 69 percent to 78 percent of all authorized applications.

Appendix Tables A-2 and B-2 provide detailed data
from all supplementary reports submitted.
During 2004, a total of 2,153 arrests, 1,683
convictions, and additional costs of $19,112,753
arose from and were reported for wiretaps completed
in previous years. Table 8 summarizes additional
prosecution activity by jurisdiction from supplemental reports on intercepts terminated in the years
noted. Sixty-two percent of the supplemental reports
of additional activity in 2004 involved wiretaps
terminated in 2003. Of all supplemental arrests,
convictions, and costs reported in 2004, intercepts
concluded in 2003 led to 77 percent of arrests, 59
percent of convictions, and 94 percent of expenditures. Table 9 reflects the total number of arrests and
convictions resulting from intercepts terminated in
calendar years 1994 through 2004.

Supplementary Reports
Under 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials
must file supplementary reports on additional court
or police activity occurring as a result of intercepts
reported in prior years. Because many wiretap orders
are related to large-scale criminal investigations that
cross county and state boundaries, supplementary
reports are necessary to fulfill reporting requirements. Arrests, trials, and convictions resulting from
these interceptions often do not occur within the
same year in which the intercept was first reported.

13